I've recently made the acquaintance of an economics graduate studentat the university where I spend most of my time. He's from WestBengal in India, but hopes to do what he's studying as a career, inthe US. Presumably because of this, he's started reading Americanbooks: <The Great Gatsby>, and now he's reading <The Grapes of Wrath>.

Being who I am, I interpreted these statements as a request forrecommendations even though I knew better, and ploughed right in.First I went for periods, in the "mainstream":

<Adventures of Huckleberry Finn>, 1885 (with the note that he mightwant to read <The Adventures of Tom Sawyer>, 1876, first)

<Little Women>, 1868-1869 (but now sometimes published includingsequels dated 1871 and 1886, which I forgot but in any event don'tthink he really needed to know)

The late twentieth century bothered me briefly, until I remembered,um, something big and obvious:

<Native Son>, 1940 (oops as to date)

while allowing as how <The Color Purple>, 1982, which I haven't read,would probably be a reasonable substitute. He mentioned at thispoint that he *had* read <The Bluest Eye> by Toni Morrison (1970),and intended to read her <Song of Solomon>, 1977, and her famous book,whose title neither of us remembered at the time (<Beloved>, 1987).

I vaguely mentioned that he should probably try something by someonelike Hawthorne or Thoreau, but didn't think of <The Scarlet Letter>,1850, and wouldn't have suggested <Moby-Dick>, 1851, if I *had*thought of it. Back to this period below.

Because the reason I'm posting about this here (well, other thangarrulity) is that I then went on to genres. Now, my criteria herewere that the book had to be hugely famous and still read, *and*should have some intrinsic American-ness to it. (So even if <Little,Big> were that kind of famous, at some level it's too British toqualify. The point of those criteria was that I thought each of hisfirst two choices served his American culture education in both theseways - these are books Americans generally have heard of, and manyhave read, *and* they say things about America - so anything Isuggested should do the same.)

So for science fiction I saw no alternative to Ray Bradbury,specifically <The Martian Chronicles>, 1946-1950, first compiled assuch 1950, and <Fahrenheit 451>, 1953.

For fantasy, I was stumped a little while, but finally went withanother children's book, <The Wonderful Wizard of Oz>, 1900.

I tried for mystery, but came up only with two very tentative ideas:John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee books (though they're hardlyhousehold names), or Poe (a household name, but is Dupin, which Ihaven't read, really "American" ?). I see now that I should'vethought of Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, but I've readneither, and am not sure <The Maltese Falcon>, let alone anything ofChandler's, is really *that* famous.

Having failed on a genre I thought I sorta knew, I didn't try anyothers.

Any suggestions on that score, on yet other genres, or the on-topicones? I see this guy occasionally, and he's finding <The Grapes ofWrath> kind of a slog, so there's time.

Joe Bernstein

PS <The Stranger>, now Seattle's only alt-um-biweekly, publishes acalendar of entertainment events, of course, and for some time nowthe first page of that has been devoted to "THE BIG & THE OBVIOUS".I have a complicated relationship with <The Stranger>, but I surelike that title.<https://www.thestranger.com/>but they don't seem to use it in the online edition.

Post by Joe BernsteinI've recently made the acquaintance of an economics graduate studentat the university where I spend most of my time. He's from WestBengal in India, but hopes to do what he's studying as a career, inthe US. Presumably because of this, he's started reading Americanbooks: <The Great Gatsby>, and now he's reading <The Grapes of Wrath>.Being who I am, I interpreted these statements as a request forrecommendations even though I knew better, and ploughed right in.<Adventures of Huckleberry Finn>, 1885 (with the note that he mightwant to read <The Adventures of Tom Sawyer>, 1876, first)<Little Women>, 1868-1869 (but now sometimes published includingsequels dated 1871 and 1886, which I forgot but in any event don'tthink he really needed to know)The late twentieth century bothered me briefly, until I remembered,<Native Son>, 1940 (oops as to date)while allowing as how <The Color Purple>, 1982, which I haven't read,would probably be a reasonable substitute. He mentioned at thispoint that he *had* read <The Bluest Eye> by Toni Morrison (1970),and intended to read her <Song of Solomon>, 1977, and her famous book,whose title neither of us remembered at the time (<Beloved>, 1987).I vaguely mentioned that he should probably try something by someonelike Hawthorne or Thoreau, but didn't think of <The Scarlet Letter>,1850, and wouldn't have suggested <Moby-Dick>, 1851, if I *had*thought of it. Back to this period below.Because the reason I'm posting about this here (well, other thangarrulity) is that I then went on to genres. Now, my criteria herewere that the book had to be hugely famous and still read, *and*should have some intrinsic American-ness to it. (So even if <Little,Big> were that kind of famous, at some level it's too British toqualify. The point of those criteria was that I thought each of hisfirst two choices served his American culture education in both theseways - these are books Americans generally have heard of, and manyhave read, *and* they say things about America - so anything Isuggested should do the same.)So for science fiction I saw no alternative to Ray Bradbury,specifically <The Martian Chronicles>, 1946-1950, first compiled assuch 1950, and <Fahrenheit 451>, 1953.For fantasy, I was stumped a little while, but finally went withanother children's book, <The Wonderful Wizard of Oz>, 1900.John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee books (though they're hardlyhousehold names), or Poe (a household name, but is Dupin, which Ihaven't read, really "American" ?). I see now that I should'vethought of Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, but I've readneither, and am not sure <The Maltese Falcon>, let alone anything ofChandler's, is really *that* famous.Having failed on a genre I thought I sorta knew, I didn't try anyothers.Any suggestions on that score, on yet other genres, or the on-topicones? I see this guy occasionally, and he's finding <The Grapes ofWrath> kind of a slog, so there's time.Joe BernsteinPS <The Stranger>, now Seattle's only alt-um-biweekly, publishes acalendar of entertainment events, of course, and for some time nowthe first page of that has been devoted to "THE BIG & THE OBVIOUS".I have a complicated relationship with <The Stranger>, but I surelike that title.<https://www.thestranger.com/>but they don't seem to use it in the online edition.--

I would suggest Heinlein rather than Bradbury as specifically American, because of the multiple references in books such as "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" and "If this goes on/ Revolt in 2100" to the American revolution.

Fortunately for your correspondent, I imagine that his career will depend on judgements about natural experiments and economic models, rather than dangerous subjects such as what constitutes American books and whether they are the proper reading for somebody from West Bengal, rather than something that sustains a West Bengali or International heritage. Perhaps I am influenced by the atmosphere in the UK, where a Labour MP posted a picture of an England flag and a white van in a sneering tweet and caused a stir (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30148768) but I don't associate enthusiastic patriotism with some shades of political opinion. Do faculty members in American universities applaud some more sophisticated version of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny of which I am unaware, or are they at the moment backing American women's soccer, which seems united in its desire to go anywhere for American soccer except the White House?

Post by Joe BernsteinI've recently made the acquaintance of an economics graduate studentat the university where I spend most of my time. He's from WestBengal in India, but hopes to do what he's studying as a career, inthe US. Presumably because of this, he's started reading Americanbooks: <The Great Gatsby>, and now he's reading <The Grapes of Wrath>.Being who I am, I interpreted these statements as a request forrecommendations even though I knew better, and ploughed right in.<Adventures of Huckleberry Finn>, 1885 (with the note that he mightwant to read <The Adventures of Tom Sawyer>, 1876, first)<Little Women>, 1868-1869 (but now sometimes published includingsequels dated 1871 and 1886, which I forgot but in any event don'tthink he really needed to know)The late twentieth century bothered me briefly, until I remembered,<Native Son>, 1940 (oops as to date)while allowing as how <The Color Purple>, 1982, which I haven't read,would probably be a reasonable substitute. He mentioned at thispoint that he *had* read <The Bluest Eye> by Toni Morrison (1970),and intended to read her <Song of Solomon>, 1977, and her famous book,whose title neither of us remembered at the time (<Beloved>, 1987).I vaguely mentioned that he should probably try something by someonelike Hawthorne or Thoreau, but didn't think of <The Scarlet Letter>,1850, and wouldn't have suggested <Moby-Dick>, 1851, if I *had*thought of it. Back to this period below.Because the reason I'm posting about this here (well, other thangarrulity) is that I then went on to genres. Now, my criteria herewere that the book had to be hugely famous and still read, *and*should have some intrinsic American-ness to it. (So even if <Little,Big> were that kind of famous, at some level it's too British toqualify. The point of those criteria was that I thought each of hisfirst two choices served his American culture education in both theseways - these are books Americans generally have heard of, and manyhave read, *and* they say things about America - so anything Isuggested should do the same.)So for science fiction I saw no alternative to Ray Bradbury,specifically <The Martian Chronicles>, 1946-1950, first compiled assuch 1950, and <Fahrenheit 451>, 1953.For fantasy, I was stumped a little while, but finally went withanother children's book, <The Wonderful Wizard of Oz>, 1900.John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee books (though they're hardlyhousehold names), or Poe (a household name, but is Dupin, which Ihaven't read, really "American" ?). I see now that I should'vethought of Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, but I've readneither, and am not sure <The Maltese Falcon>, let alone anything ofChandler's, is really *that* famous.Having failed on a genre I thought I sorta knew, I didn't try anyothers.Any suggestions on that score, on yet other genres, or the on-topicones? I see this guy occasionally, and he's finding <The Grapes ofWrath> kind of a slog, so there's time.Joe BernsteinPS <The Stranger>, now Seattle's only alt-um-biweekly, publishes acalendar of entertainment events, of course, and for some time nowthe first page of that has been devoted to "THE BIG & THE OBVIOUS".I have a complicated relationship with <The Stranger>, but I surelike that title.<https://www.thestranger.com/>but they don't seem to use it in the online edition.--

I would suggest Heinlein rather than Bradbury as specifically American, because of the multiple references in books such as "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" and "If this goes on/ Revolt in 2100" to the American revolution.

Just had occasion to reread "The Illustrated Man". I really don'tunderstand why Bradbury is so highly regarded. He appears to have nounderstanding of any of the sciences, including economics, making ithard for me to read through the facepalm. While this would not besurprising given the amount of time I've spent studying the sciencesand working in engineering, I recall the same facepalm occuring when Iwas 12 and reading it for the first time.

I have difficulty recommending Bradbury to anyone who is not alit-her-a-tour major.

Post by m***@sky.comFortunately for your correspondent, I imagine that his career will depend on judgements about natural experiments and economic models, rather than dangerous subjects such as what constitutes American books and whether they are the proper reading for somebody from West Bengal, rather than something that sustains a West Bengali or International heritage. Perhaps I am influenced by the atmosphere in the UK, where a Labour MP posted a picture of an England flag and a white van in a sneering tweet and caused a stir (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30148768) but I don't associate enthusiastic patriotism with some shades of political opinion. Do faculty members in American universities applaud some more sophisticated version of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny of which I am unaware, or are they at the moment backing American women's soccer, which seems united in its desire to go anywhere for American soccer except the White House?

Post by Joe BernsteinI've recently made the acquaintance of an economics graduate studentat the university where I spend most of my time. He's from WestBengal in India, but hopes to do what he's studying as a career, inthe US. Presumably because of this, he's started reading Americanbooks: <The Great Gatsby>, and now he's reading <The Grapes of Wrath>.Being who I am, I interpreted these statements as a request forrecommendations even though I knew better, and ploughed right in.

Post by Joe BernsteinBecause the reason I'm posting about this here (well, other thangarrulity) is that I then went on to genres. Now, my criteria herewere that the book had to be hugely famous and still read, *and*should have some intrinsic American-ness to it.So for science fiction I saw no alternative to Ray Bradbury,specifically <The Martian Chronicles>, 1946-1950, first compiled assuch 1950, and <Fahrenheit 451>, 1953.

Just had occasion to reread "The Illustrated Man". I really don'tunderstand why Bradbury is so highly regarded. He appears to have nounderstanding of any of the sciences, including economics, making ithard for me to read through the facepalm. While this would not besurprising given the amount of time I've spent studying the sciencesand working in engineering, I recall the same facepalm occuring when Iwas 12 and reading it for the first time.I have difficulty recommending Bradbury to anyone who is not alit-her-a-tour major.

Huh.

It's a long time since I read Bradbury but I don't remember anythinglike your aversion, just he isn't a writer I read much. That said,I wasn't crazy about picking him for that reason. I don't findHeinlein an acceptable substitute - nothing he's written is crazyfamous, and I don't think his fiction is as simply American as I'mgoing for. (Bradbury is, here, a special case. Neither of his mostfamous books is as famous as his name is - he's kinda like Poe thatway - whereas most of these books are at least as well-known in theirown rights as their authors. The only sf I can think of that fits*that* criterion is British - <Brave New World> and <1984>. Samewith mystery, actually - Sherlock Holmes, with the runner-up anotherauthor more famous than her titles, Agatha Christie.)

Any other possibilities? <Dune> may be as famous but isn't all thatAmerican. Others?

Post by Joe BernsteinI've recently made the acquaintance of an economics graduate studentat the university where I spend most of my time. He's from WestBengal in India, but hopes to do what he's studying as a career, inthe US. Presumably because of this, he's started reading Americanbooks: <The Great Gatsby>, and now he's reading <The Grapes of Wrath>.Being who I am, I interpreted these statements as a request forrecommendations even though I knew better, and ploughed right in.

Post by Joe BernsteinBecause the reason I'm posting about this here (well, other thangarrulity) is that I then went on to genres. Now, my criteria herewere that the book had to be hugely famous and still read, *and*should have some intrinsic American-ness to it.So for science fiction I saw no alternative to Ray Bradbury,specifically <The Martian Chronicles>, 1946-1950, first compiled assuch 1950, and <Fahrenheit 451>, 1953.

I would suggest Heinlein rather than Bradbury as specificallyAmerican, because of the multiple references in books such as "TheMoon Is a Harsh Mistress" and "If this goes on/ Revolt in 2100" to theAmerican revolution.

One reason Heinlein is problematic is exemplified by <The Moon Is aHarsh Mistress>. He's so objective about the US, in that at leastand I think in his fiction in general, that he comes across asoutside it. (I haven't read all that much Bradbury but I find ithard to imagine *ever* accusing him of objectivity about the US.)

I haven't read the other title you mention.

I have trouble imagining recommending <Starship Troopers> or even<Tunnel in the Sky> for this purpose. <Moon> at least says moreexplicitly about America.

Post by m***@sky.comFortunately for your correspondent, I imagine that his career willdepend on judgements about natural experiments and economic models,rather than dangerous subjects such as what constitutes American booksand whether they are the proper reading for somebody from West Bengal,rather than something that sustains a West Bengali or Internationalheritage.

One reason he's finding <The Grapes of Wrath> a slog, of course, isthat it's in English. His spoken English is excellent, and I'm sureeverything he reads in his field is in English (or anyway not inBengali or any other language whose script is derived from Devanagari),but still, Bengali is what he's mostly read for pleasure. (I have noidea how literate he is in, nor how much he reads in, Hindi or otherIndo-Aryan/Devnag languages.) Fiction calls for bigger vocabulariesthan specialised non-fiction too. (I can read the latter, but notfiction, in the languages I studied in high school.)

He wants a career in the corporate, not the academic, world. I findit hard to imagine that he'd be asked by an interviewer about hispleasure reading - and anyway I doubt these books are exactly"pleasure" reading for him.

He may be preparing to seek citizenship in an unusual way. This sortof reading seems much more obviously closer to relevant to that.

(Also, economics is not the typical social science in Americanuniversities. Many economists are known to be politically well tothe right of Elizabeth Warren, and some are well to the right ofthe current U.S. president. They are not, in general, politicallycorrect.)

Post by m***@sky.comPerhaps I am influenced by the atmosphere in the UK, where aLabour MP posted a picture of an England flag and a white van in asneering tweet and caused a stir(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30148768) but I don'tassociate enthusiastic patriotism with some shades of politicalopinion. Do faculty members in American universities applaud some moresophisticated version of American exceptionalism and manifest destinyof which I am unaware, or are they at the moment backing Americanwomen's soccer, which seems united in its desire to go anywhere forAmerican soccer except the White House?

I think faculty members of most humanities and non-econ soc-scidepartments probably vary a good bit, but many probably aren't immuneto weak-tea versions of nationalism. Some older ones are stillvocally nationalistic or otherwise hawkish, I'm sure, given thatpeople like<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington>are not long dead.

This isn't the same thing as exceptionalism and manifest destiny,but to be nationalistic, intelligent, informed, and of good willmeans to *want* your country to be exceptional, whether or not youbelieve it already is. Part of what's taken as un-American in left-wing professors is sometimes actually a passionate demand that we beas good as we want to think we are.

That said, there are also flaming leftists of more stereotypicalkinds.

Post by Joe BernsteinI've recently made the acquaintance of an economics graduate studentat the university where I spend most of my time. He's from WestBengal in India, but hopes to do what he's studying as a career, inthe US. Presumably because of this, he's started reading Americanbooks: <The Great Gatsby>, and now he's reading <The Grapes of Wrath>.Being who I am, I interpreted these statements as a request forrecommendations even though I knew better, and ploughed right in.

Post by Joe BernsteinBecause the reason I'm posting about this here (well, other thangarrulity) is that I then went on to genres. Now, my criteria herewere that the book had to be hugely famous and still read, *and*should have some intrinsic American-ness to it.So for science fiction I saw no alternative to Ray Bradbury,specifically <The Martian Chronicles>, 1946-1950, first compiled assuch 1950, and <Fahrenheit 451>, 1953.

I would suggest Heinlein rather than Bradbury as specificallyAmerican, because of the multiple references in books such as "TheMoon Is a Harsh Mistress" and "If this goes on/ Revolt in 2100" to theAmerican revolution.

One reason Heinlein is problematic is exemplified by <The Moon Is aHarsh Mistress>. He's so objective about the US, in that at leastand I think in his fiction in general, that he comes across asoutside it. (I haven't read all that much Bradbury but I find ithard to imagine *ever* accusing him of objectivity about the US.)I haven't read the other title you mention.I have trouble imagining recommending <Starship Troopers> or even<Tunnel in the Sky> for this purpose. <Moon> at least says moreexplicitly about America.

Post by m***@sky.comFortunately for your correspondent, I imagine that his career willdepend on judgements about natural experiments and economic models,rather than dangerous subjects such as what constitutes American booksand whether they are the proper reading for somebody from West Bengal,rather than something that sustains a West Bengali or Internationalheritage.

One reason he's finding <The Grapes of Wrath> a slog, of course, isthat it's in English. His spoken English is excellent, and I'm sureeverything he reads in his field is in English (or anyway not inBengali or any other language whose script is derived from Devanagari),but still, Bengali is what he's mostly read for pleasure. (I have noidea how literate he is in, nor how much he reads in, Hindi or otherIndo-Aryan/Devnag languages.) Fiction calls for bigger vocabulariesthan specialised non-fiction too. (I can read the latter, but notfiction, in the languages I studied in high school.)He wants a career in the corporate, not the academic, world. I findit hard to imagine that he'd be asked by an interviewer about hispleasure reading - and anyway I doubt these books are exactly"pleasure" reading for him.

Just a note but has he considered becoming an actuary? If not hemight want to look into it at least deeply enough to decide that he'snot interested.

Post by Joe BernsteinHe may be preparing to seek citizenship in an unusual way. This sortof reading seems much more obviously closer to relevant to that.(Also, economics is not the typical social science in Americanuniversities. Many economists are known to be politically well tothe right of Elizabeth Warren, and some are well to the right ofthe current U.S. president. They are not, in general, politicallycorrect.)

Post by m***@sky.comPerhaps I am influenced by the atmosphere in the UK, where aLabour MP posted a picture of an England flag and a white van in asneering tweet and caused a stir(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30148768) but I don'tassociate enthusiastic patriotism with some shades of politicalopinion. Do faculty members in American universities applaud some moresophisticated version of American exceptionalism and manifest destinyof which I am unaware, or are they at the moment backing Americanwomen's soccer, which seems united in its desire to go anywhere forAmerican soccer except the White House?

I think faculty members of most humanities and non-econ soc-scidepartments probably vary a good bit, but many probably aren't immuneto weak-tea versions of nationalism. Some older ones are stillvocally nationalistic or otherwise hawkish, I'm sure, given thatpeople like<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington>are not long dead.This isn't the same thing as exceptionalism and manifest destiny,but to be nationalistic, intelligent, informed, and of good willmeans to *want* your country to be exceptional, whether or not youbelieve it already is. Part of what's taken as un-American in left-wing professors is sometimes actually a passionate demand that we beas good as we want to think we are.That said, there are also flaming leftists of more stereotypicalkinds.Joe Bernstein

Post by Joe BernsteinI've recently made the acquaintance of an economics graduate studentat the university where I spend most of my time. He's from WestBengal in India, but hopes to do what he's studying as a career, inthe US. Presumably because of this, he's started reading Americanbooks: <The Great Gatsby>, and now he's reading <The Grapes of Wrath>.Being who I am, I interpreted these statements as a request forrecommendations even though I knew better, and ploughed right in.

Post by Joe BernsteinBecause the reason I'm posting about this here (well, other thangarrulity) is that I then went on to genres. Now, my criteria herewere that the book had to be hugely famous and still read, *and*should have some intrinsic American-ness to it.So for science fiction I saw no alternative to Ray Bradbury,specifically <The Martian Chronicles>, 1946-1950, first compiled assuch 1950, and <Fahrenheit 451>, 1953.

I would suggest Heinlein rather than Bradbury as specificallyAmerican, because of the multiple references in books such as "TheMoon Is a Harsh Mistress" and "If this goes on/ Revolt in 2100" to theAmerican revolution.

One reason Heinlein is problematic is exemplified by <The Moon Is aHarsh Mistress>. He's so objective about the US, in that at leastand I think in his fiction in general, that he comes across asoutside it. (I haven't read all that much Bradbury but I find ithard to imagine *ever* accusing him of objectivity about the US.)I haven't read the other title you mention.I have trouble imagining recommending <Starship Troopers> or even<Tunnel in the Sky> for this purpose. <Moon> at least says moreexplicitly about America.

Not Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a good read) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is more and more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't think of an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a warning. How about Niven and Pournelle's "Oath of Fealty"? - If he _was_ a social scientist he could just answer all of the questions that "Oath of Fealty" poses and then he'd have an impressive journal article at the very least, and perhaps have won tenure somewhere.

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

The trend is toward the population living in cities. The notion of"working from home" has its advocates, but we're going to need vastlybetter technology before we can actually do it. To take oneexample--our company has a policy that managers and their subordinatesshould meet briefly several times a week to discuss what is going onin their department. We used to do this with a whiteboard. It tookabout 10 minutes unless some issue came up that merited more time. Nowwe use software to do it and some team members "work from home" and ittakes a half an hour or more, and sometimes doesn't happen at allbecause the cloud-based software is down. There is no substitute yetfor a face to face meeting.

Personally I can work from home if I want to and I find that I am lessproductive and less involved when I do.

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

But the mess is where people want to live. Or rather, people like tolive where other people are, because that's where the opportunitiesare, whether economic, romantic, or otherwise.

The fraction of people living in cities has been increasing for all ofrecorded history. Sure, the trend may reverse one day, but I wouldn'thold my breath.

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

Okay, you are speaking your personal tastes, and that's fine.But the phenomenon of people leaving the countryside and cominginto the cities is not new. It was particularly noticeable inthe 1950s, during the Industrial Revolution, and in the MiddleAges (where, if you were a serf and a craftsman, and could livein a city for a year and a day, you were a free man and couldn'tbe dragged back to the manor). But it goes all the way back tothe Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 BCE or so, when if youlived out in the open, your nomadic neighbors tended to grab offyour produce unless you built walls around it.

Some people are now able to telecommute, and if you can arrangeto do that, good for you. But the tendency is the other way.

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

Okay, you are speaking your personal tastes, and that's fine.But the phenomenon of people leaving the countryside and cominginto the cities is not new. It was particularly noticeable inthe 1950s, during the Industrial Revolution, and in the MiddleAges (where, if you were a serf and a craftsman, and could livein a city for a year and a day, you were a free man and couldn'tbe dragged back to the manor). But it goes all the way back tothe Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 BCE or so, when if youlived out in the open, your nomadic neighbors tended to grab offyour produce unless you built walls around it.Some people are now able to telecommute, and if you can arrangeto do that, good for you. But the tendency is the other way.

At my current office, we've had a 9/80 schedule for a few years,giving alternate Fridays off, and I've been working from homeTuesdays and (other alternate) Fridays for some time.

Corporate just decided that this is a problem, and declared thatemployees who average less than 12 days a month in the office(vacations, holidays, and corporate travel days all count as 'notin office'), can't have a permanent full time office or cubicle.

I'm pretty annoyed by this, though the rest of my team decided thatrather then 'hotdesk' cubes a couple days a week with another group,we'd all go full time remote. I *could* come in and use one of the 'hotel'cubes, or make sure I'm above the 12 day threshold, but I'd be here withoutmy group, by myself, and that does not appeal.

Working 100% remote has some advantages; you don't spend much time or moneycommuting, you can live further away, and have the option to run brief errandsat home. We're going to use Skype video to interact within the group.

But you miss the face to face social interaction, not just with your own team,but also with other people in the company, the contacts which will help yourcareer. It's not like you can do lunch together anymore, and to seniormangement you're a never seen, never heard name on a list.

I'm not happy about this, despite saving about 6 hour's driving a week.

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

Okay, you are speaking your personal tastes, and that's fine.But the phenomenon of people leaving the countryside and cominginto the cities is not new. It was particularly noticeable inthe 1950s, during the Industrial Revolution, and in the MiddleAges (where, if you were a serf and a craftsman, and could livein a city for a year and a day, you were a free man and couldn'tbe dragged back to the manor). But it goes all the way back tothe Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 BCE or so, when if youlived out in the open, your nomadic neighbors tended to grab offyour produce unless you built walls around it.Some people are now able to telecommute, and if you can arrangeto do that, good for you. But the tendency is the other way.

At my current office, we've had a 9/80 schedule for a few years,giving alternate Fridays off, and I've been working from homeTuesdays and (other alternate) Fridays for some time.Corporate just decided that this is a problem, and declared thatemployees who average less than 12 days a month in the office(vacations, holidays, and corporate travel days all count as 'notin office'), can't have a permanent full time office or cubicle.I'm pretty annoyed by this, though the rest of my team decided thatrather then 'hotdesk' cubes a couple days a week with another group,we'd all go full time remote. I *could* come in and use one of the 'hotel'cubes, or make sure I'm above the 12 day threshold, but I'd be here withoutmy group, by myself, and that does not appeal.Working 100% remote has some advantages; you don't spend much time or moneycommuting, you can live further away, and have the option to run brief errandsat home. We're going to use Skype video to interact within the group.But you miss the face to face social interaction, not just with your own team,but also with other people in the company, the contacts which will help yourcareer. It's not like you can do lunch together anymore, and to seniormangement you're a never seen, never heard name on a list.I'm not happy about this, despite saving about 6 hour's driving a week.pt

Well,

I started in an office, then worked remotely for 5 years, then in an office,then remotely again.

I was never more miserable than in that second office, once having tastedfreedom.

Social interaction is overrated.

And on the "city" thing -- I live in a bedroom community of a medium sizedcity. So, I'm not saying everybody would live in the sticks, though thatshould be possible..

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

Okay, you are speaking your personal tastes, and that's fine.But the phenomenon of people leaving the countryside and cominginto the cities is not new. It was particularly noticeable inthe 1950s, during the Industrial Revolution, and in the MiddleAges (where, if you were a serf and a craftsman, and could livein a city for a year and a day, you were a free man and couldn'tbe dragged back to the manor). But it goes all the way back tothe Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 BCE or so, when if youlived out in the open, your nomadic neighbors tended to grab offyour produce unless you built walls around it.Some people are now able to telecommute, and if you can arrangeto do that, good for you. But the tendency is the other way.

At my current office, we've had a 9/80 schedule for a few years,giving alternate Fridays off, and I've been working from homeTuesdays and (other alternate) Fridays for some time.Corporate just decided that this is a problem, and declared thatemployees who average less than 12 days a month in the office(vacations, holidays, and corporate travel days all count as 'notin office'), can't have a permanent full time office or cubicle.I'm pretty annoyed by this, though the rest of my team decided thatrather then 'hotdesk' cubes a couple days a week with another group,we'd all go full time remote. I *could* come in and use one of the 'hotel'cubes, or make sure I'm above the 12 day threshold, but I'd be here withoutmy group, by myself, and that does not appeal.Working 100% remote has some advantages; you don't spend much time or moneycommuting, you can live further away, and have the option to run brief errandsat home. We're going to use Skype video to interact within the group.But you miss the face to face social interaction, not just with your own team,but also with other people in the company, the contacts which will help yourcareer. It's not like you can do lunch together anymore, and to seniormangement you're a never seen, never heard name on a list.I'm not happy about this, despite saving about 6 hour's driving a week.pt

Well,I started in an office, then worked remotely for 5 years, then in an office,then remotely again.I was never more miserable than in that second office, once having tastedfreedom.Social interaction is overrated.And on the "city" thing -- I live in a bedroom community of a medium sizedcity. So, I'm not saying everybody would live in the sticks, though thatshould be possible..

I talk to customer who live "in the sticks" on a daily basis.Some US folks only have access to the net through much slowerconnections than an urban or suburban dweller would be used to.

[quote]

Roughly 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to high-speedbroadband, compared with just 4 percent of urban Americans, accordingto a report from the FCC using 2016 figures.

If you push out of the suburbs into the "exurbs," it makessense to make sure you will have access to some form of broadband,so that you can telecommute efficiently.

A couple of years ago, when I was carless, I investigated whetherI could work from home. A few people in my work group do. However,when they have a problem they can't handle online, they send messagesto me, and I have to fix them or send them on up the line to mysupervisors. If I worked from home, I wouldn't have the necessarypermissions to fix some of these problems, while when I work in theoffice, I do. One issue is customer credit card security. I imaginethe company would have to pay more for software licenses that wouldallow a home-based employee to handle a CC# securely the way thoseof us in the office can. We are still using terminal emulationsoftware to access one point-of-sales/inventory/returns system,while another major client is entirely web-based. The clients onthe old POS system operate on "Cheap is good. Cheapest is best."Their websites, if they have them, are all turnkey, cookie-cutterpages sourced through a third party. We still use batching of neworders, so that if someone calls up 5 minutes after they place anorder, we can't edit it. We may not be able to for 5 hours. I expectthat many firms that could set up for more remote access by at-homeemployees won't, because they don't want to invest capital to upgradeor replace legacy systems. I'd also guess that, if they had only a fewfolks working at a centralized location, they'd need to rent or buysmaller spaces that the future at-home workers could visit for training.Once they have a good grip on "the way WE do it," they could be setloose to work from home. But keeping a larger space with a "bullpen"of some permanent employees and as many temps as are needed for theseason of the year, expanding and contracting as needed, makes moresense for them.

I actually work with one client who kept one of his employees at ourwarehouse site's office. All customer care problems were much morecomplicated than "is it plugged in?" had to be reduced to a summarythat matched The Official Form and emailed to that person, if she werenot able to answer the phone, and the calls were rerouted to our office.The latency in getting a customer an answer was awful. It was a smallcompany, and someties the company CEO was the only one who could givean answer that wouldn't get contradicted later on. The CEO would be backat a home office in Britain, or on the road in Europe or North America,trying to open up new markets.

Sometimes there is no substitute for popping into your immediatesuperiors office and complaining about idiot behavior by clients. :)

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

Okay, you are speaking your personal tastes, and that's fine.But the phenomenon of people leaving the countryside and cominginto the cities is not new. It was particularly noticeable inthe 1950s, during the Industrial Revolution, and in the MiddleAges (where, if you were a serf and a craftsman, and could livein a city for a year and a day, you were a free man and couldn'tbe dragged back to the manor). But it goes all the way back tothe Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 BCE or so, when if youlived out in the open, your nomadic neighbors tended to grab offyour produce unless you built walls around it.Some people are now able to telecommute, and if you can arrangeto do that, good for you. But the tendency is the other way.

At my current office, we've had a 9/80 schedule for a few years,giving alternate Fridays off, and I've been working from homeTuesdays and (other alternate) Fridays for some time.Corporate just decided that this is a problem, and declared thatemployees who average less than 12 days a month in the office(vacations, holidays, and corporate travel days all count as 'notin office'), can't have a permanent full time office or cubicle.I'm pretty annoyed by this, though the rest of my team decided thatrather then 'hotdesk' cubes a couple days a week with another group,we'd all go full time remote. I *could* come in and use one of the 'hotel'cubes, or make sure I'm above the 12 day threshold, but I'd be here withoutmy group, by myself, and that does not appeal.Working 100% remote has some advantages; you don't spend much time or moneycommuting, you can live further away, and have the option to run brief errandsat home. We're going to use Skype video to interact within the group.But you miss the face to face social interaction, not just with your own team,but also with other people in the company, the contacts which will help yourcareer. It's not like you can do lunch together anymore, and to seniormangement you're a never seen, never heard name on a list.I'm not happy about this, despite saving about 6 hour's driving a week.pt

Well,I started in an office, then worked remotely for 5 years, then in an office,then remotely again.I was never more miserable than in that second office, once having tastedfreedom.Social interaction is overrated.And on the "city" thing -- I live in a bedroom community of a medium sizedcity. So, I'm not saying everybody would live in the sticks, though thatshould be possible..

I talk to customer who live "in the sticks" on a daily basis.Some US folks only have access to the net through much slowerconnections than an urban or suburban dweller would be used to.[quote]Roughly 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to high-speedbroadband, compared with just 4 percent of urban Americans, accordingto a report from the FCC using 2016 figures.[/quote]https://www.cnet.com/news/why-rural-areas-cant-catch-a-break-on-speedy-broadband/If you push out of the suburbs into the "exurbs," it makessense to make sure you will have access to some form of broadband,so that you can telecommute efficiently.A couple of years ago, when I was carless, I investigated whetherI could work from home. A few people in my work group do. However,when they have a problem they can't handle online, they send messagesto me, and I have to fix them or send them on up the line to mysupervisors. If I worked from home, I wouldn't have the necessarypermissions to fix some of these problems, while when I work in theoffice, I do. One issue is customer credit card security. I imaginethe company would have to pay more for software licenses that wouldallow a home-based employee to handle a CC# securely the way thoseof us in the office can. We are still using terminal emulationsoftware to access one point-of-sales/inventory/returns system,while another major client is entirely web-based. The clients onthe old POS system operate on "Cheap is good. Cheapest is best."Their websites, if they have them, are all turnkey, cookie-cutterpages sourced through a third party. We still use batching of neworders, so that if someone calls up 5 minutes after they place anorder, we can't edit it. We may not be able to for 5 hours. I expectthat many firms that could set up for more remote access by at-homeemployees won't, because they don't want to invest capital to upgradeor replace legacy systems. I'd also guess that, if they had only a fewfolks working at a centralized location, they'd need to rent or buysmaller spaces that the future at-home workers could visit for training.Once they have a good grip on "the way WE do it," they could be setloose to work from home. But keeping a larger space with a "bullpen"of some permanent employees and as many temps as are needed for theseason of the year, expanding and contracting as needed, makes moresense for them.I actually work with one client who kept one of his employees at ourwarehouse site's office. All customer care problems were much morecomplicated than "is it plugged in?" had to be reduced to a summarythat matched The Official Form and emailed to that person, if she werenot able to answer the phone, and the calls were rerouted to our office.The latency in getting a customer an answer was awful. It was a smallcompany, and someties the company CEO was the only one who could givean answer that wouldn't get contradicted later on. The CEO would be backat a home office in Britain, or on the road in Europe or North America,trying to open up new markets.Sometimes there is no substitute for popping into your immediatesuperiors office and complaining about idiot behavior by clients. :)Kevin R

When I work from home, I use a company supplied laptop, with a companysupplied VPN (over my home WiFi). I'm allowed to do any non-classifedthing I can do in the office. I also have a webcam and headset for Skypeteleconferences, as well as a phone.

Anything I need to do for my current work I can do from home.But I can't wander over to a co-worker to discuss something casually, getto know a manager from a different group over lunch, or listen in on peopleand offer suggestions.

Everything is fine on the official, documentable functions. But the soft-skillthings, which can really get a team running, are missing.

Post by m***@sky.comNot Science Fiction, but for the myths of small town America (and a goodread) there's "Lake Wobegon Days" by Keillor. Since the future is moreand more likely to be urban, it may be a warning sign that I can't thinkof an urban equivalent - but then SF often shows the future as a

"More and more likely"? Why so? I'd say less and less likely.The "office" makes less sense every year, and even if you do have to showup somewhere every day for some reason, self driving cars where you cansleep away the commute are going to militate towards living further andfurther away from the mess.

Okay, you are speaking your personal tastes, and that's fine.But the phenomenon of people leaving the countryside and cominginto the cities is not new. It was particularly noticeable inthe 1950s, during the Industrial Revolution, and in the MiddleAges (where, if you were a serf and a craftsman, and could livein a city for a year and a day, you were a free man and couldn'tbe dragged back to the manor). But it goes all the way back tothe Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 BCE or so, when if youlived out in the open, your nomadic neighbors tended to grab offyour produce unless you built walls around it.Some people are now able to telecommute, and if you can arrangeto do that, good for you. But the tendency is the other way.

At my current office, we've had a 9/80 schedule for a few years,giving alternate Fridays off, and I've been working from homeTuesdays and (other alternate) Fridays for some time.Corporate just decided that this is a problem, and declared thatemployees who average less than 12 days a month in the office(vacations, holidays, and corporate travel days all count as 'notin office'), can't have a permanent full time office or cubicle.I'm pretty annoyed by this, though the rest of my team decided thatrather then 'hotdesk' cubes a couple days a week with another group,we'd all go full time remote. I *could* come in and use one of the 'hotel'cubes, or make sure I'm above the 12 day threshold, but I'd be here withoutmy group, by myself, and that does not appeal.Working 100% remote has some advantages; you don't spend much time or moneycommuting, you can live further away, and have the option to run brief errandsat home. We're going to use Skype video to interact within the group.But you miss the face to face social interaction, not just with your own team,but also with other people in the company, the contacts which will help yourcareer. It's not like you can do lunch together anymore, and to seniormangement you're a never seen, never heard name on a list.I'm not happy about this, despite saving about 6 hour's driving a week.pt

Well,I started in an office, then worked remotely for 5 years, then in an office,then remotely again.I was never more miserable than in that second office, once having tastedfreedom.Social interaction is overrated.And on the "city" thing -- I live in a bedroom community of a medium sizedcity. So, I'm not saying everybody would live in the sticks, though thatshould be possible..--------columbiaclosings.comWhat's not in Columbia anymore..

Social life _after_ work is a factor that could point different ways a different times - perhaps people in their 20s living it up in city night life, and then settling down in the suburbs. For the really old, easy access to a hospital is important.

Two words: Rex Stout.Two more: Ellery Queen.You ought to be able to find something you've heard of between them?

Dave, for young fantasy there's always Diane Duane

--\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flowerIt's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to seeLove is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

Two words: Rex Stout.Two more: Ellery Queen.You ought to be able to find something you've heard of between them?

Um, actually? I'd heard of both, so I grant you that, and I'm prettysure Ellery Queen actually is a household name. But none of theirtitles looked all that famous to me (though Stout's had a way withwords, some of which have probably been duplicated).

This is a kind of more extreme case of what happened with Bradbury(and would happen in a British or English version with Christie).

Nero Wolfe may be famous enough to compare to Sherlock Holmes,speaking of British mysteries, but I'm pretty sure <The Hound of theBaskervilles>, in particular, is famous enough to go on with, and I'mnot sure that's true of any of the Wolfe titles.

I'm quite certain Oz is more famous than the Young Wizards'verse.Make that much more.

It dawned on me belatedly that a romance that says a lot aboutAmerica, however little I like much of that, and that is titanicallyfamous, is <Gone with the Wind>. It isn't exactly a genre romance, Iadmit, but neither is <The Wonderful Wizard> really a genre fantasy.

(Oh, and that's the other issue: how really American are ElleryQueen and Nero Wolfe? Perry Mason might be a better bet, there,though probably a bit less famous than Wolfe and much less thanQueen. But I'm not sure I've actually read any of the three, evenone book, so I should probably stop talking here.)

Two words: Rex Stout.Two more: Ellery Queen.You ought to be able to find something you've heard of between them?

Um, actually? I'd heard of both, so I grant you that, and I'm prettysure Ellery Queen actually is a household name. But none of theirtitles looked all that famous to me (though Stout's had a way withwords, some of which have probably been duplicated).This is a kind of more extreme case of what happened with Bradbury(and would happen in a British or English version with Christie).Nero Wolfe may be famous enough to compare to Sherlock Holmes,speaking of British mysteries, but I'm pretty sure <The Hound of theBaskervilles>, in particular, is famous enough to go on with, and I'mnot sure that's true of any of the Wolfe titles.

I'm quite certain Oz is more famous than the Young Wizards'verse.Make that much more.It dawned on me belatedly that a romance that says a lot aboutAmerica, however little I like much of that, and that is titanicallyfamous, is <Gone with the Wind>. It isn't exactly a genre romance, Iadmit, but neither is <The Wonderful Wizard> really a genre fantasy.(Oh, and that's the other issue: how really American are ElleryQueen and Nero Wolfe? Perry Mason might be a better bet, there,though probably a bit less famous than Wolfe and much less thanQueen. But I'm not sure I've actually read any of the three, evenone book, so I should probably stop talking here.)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "really American". Queen'smysteries take place in Manhattan (with some branching out into nearbyareas, and a *very* noteable bunch in the town of Wrightsville, in NewEngland. His father is an Inspector in the NYPD, and there's lots ofinteraction with very New York cops. The language and slang are allAmerican.

The early Queens, and the Wrightsville stories, are some of my absolutefavorite books. In general I'd say the authors lost their touch in thelater books, except somehow the Wrightsville stories, though very unlikethe early Queen stories, are top notch.

They also wrote a bunch of books featuring other detectives. With theexception of the Drury Lane books (featuring a deaf former actor named,you guessed it, Drury Lane), none of these are worth anything. TheDrury Lane books are sort of OK, but nothing near as good as the ElleryQueen books.

Two words: Rex Stout.Two more: Ellery Queen.You ought to be able to find something you've heard of between them?

Um, actually? I'd heard of both, so I grant you that, and I'm prettysure Ellery Queen actually is a household name. But none of theirtitles looked all that famous to me (though Stout's had a way withwords, some of which have probably been duplicated).This is a kind of more extreme case of what happened with Bradbury(and would happen in a British or English version with Christie).Nero Wolfe may be famous enough to compare to Sherlock Holmes,speaking of British mysteries, but I'm pretty sure <The Hound of theBaskervilles>, in particular, is famous enough to go on with, and I'mnot sure that's true of any of the Wolfe titles.

I'm quite certain Oz is more famous than the Young Wizards'verse.Make that much more.It dawned on me belatedly that a romance that says a lot aboutAmerica, however little I like much of that, and that is titanicallyfamous, is <Gone with the Wind>. It isn't exactly a genre romance, Iadmit, but neither is <The Wonderful Wizard> really a genre fantasy.(Oh, and that's the other issue: how really American are ElleryQueen and Nero Wolfe? Perry Mason might be a better bet, there,though probably a bit less famous than Wolfe and much less thanQueen. But I'm not sure I've actually read any of the three, evenone book, so I should probably stop talking here.)Joe Bernstein

I checked back why you specified famous: so that a largeproportion of Americans have read it too.